or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 117

post #1741 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnGalt View Post

No

When a question has an "or" in it that generally indicates that the questioner is asking you to make a choice from two alternatives. You could of course reject both choices and perhaps posit an alternative scenario, however answering "no" is effectively non-responsive.
post #1742 of 5454
someone shared this story: http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/30/bill-nye-blasts-todd-akin-challenges-debate/
post #1743 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

And would you say the fossil fuel industry should be subsidised or should alternative energy sources be afforded at least a level playing field?
I think neither should be subsidized. The oil industry is a booming industry, i heard on Bloomberg radio that the United States will become the worlds largest oil producer by 2017. They are doing fine and do not need subsidies. However, Alternative energy doesn't need subsidies either. There are entrepreneurs and scientists who will, when alternative energy sources are economical and competitive to oil based energy, jump on the new opening in order to become wealthy. The notion that throwing money at an industry and hoping to hit the jackpot doesn't work and to my understanding it never really has.

p.s. The irony in that picture is that is more likely than not a coal power plant.
post #1744 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihambrecht View Post

However, Alternative energy doesn't need subsidies either. There are entrepreneurs and scientists who will, when alternative energy sources are economical and competitive to oil based energy, jump on the new opening in order to become wealthy. The notion that throwing money at an industry and hoping to hit the jackpot doesn't work and to my understanding it never really has.
Depends on what you mean by "subsidies." The petroleum industry has gotten enormous amounts of money over a century to develop to the point that it's at now.* It's going to be very hard for new energy technologies to be competitive on price from Day 1 without any kind of boost. At minimum, we really need to invest substantially on the research end.


*I read a good article recently on the role government played in developing fracking technology and getting it to the point where it could be widely deployed.
post #1745 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Depends on what you mean by "subsidies." The petroleum industry has gotten enormous amounts of money over a century to develop to the point that it's at now.* It's going to be very hard for new energy technologies to be competitive on price from Day 1 without any kind of boost. At minimum, we really need to invest substantially on the research end.
*I read a good article recently on the role government played in developing fracking technology and getting it to the point where it could be widely deployed.
A counterpoint to that could be which alternative energy sources do we pick to subsidize? There are dozens of energy sources being researched. Oil had been subsidized when oil was king regardless of subsidization. That being said I read an article that the navy was experimenting with using salt water to power jet engines so maybe that may be our answer. The military has a long history of developing things that end up possessing a multitude of civilian functions i.e Internet and interstate highway systems.
P.S. do you know where you read that article it sounds interesting.
post #1746 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihambrecht View Post

A counterpoint to that could be which alternative energy sources do we pick to subsidize? There are dozens of energy sources being researched. Oil had been subsidized when oil was king regardless of subsidization. That being said I read an article that the navy was experimenting with using salt water to power jet engines so maybe that may be our answer. The military has a long history of developing things that end up possessing a multitude of civilian functions i.e Internet and interstate highway systems.
I don't think Solyndra or corn ethanol style mass expenditures are the way to go, but a broad investment in energy-focused research will almost inevitably pay dividends. Keep the politicians out of it, let the career people at NSF and DoE made the bulk of the decisions. Throw big federal money at projects like the National Ignition Facility etc.

We may certainly get to a point where some level of mass government infrastructure investment is necessary. (for example) If we have a breakthrough on fusion, suddenly electric cars would be the obvious winner, but we'd need a mass rollout of charging stations. Lots of other possibilities, many unknown now but more likely in reality than that one. This isn't like the oil industry, which grew alongside the transportation network. We're going to need to hugely revamp some things, and that probably requires public money.
Quote:
P.S. do you know where you read that article it sounds interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-boom-in-shale-gas-credit-the-feds/2011/12/07/gIQAecFIzO_story.html
post #1747 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I don't think Solyndra or corn ethanol style mass expenditures are the way to go, but a broad investment in energy-focused research will almost inevitably pay dividends. Keep the politicians out of it, let the career people at NSF and DoE made the bulk of the decisions. Throw big federal money at projects like the National Ignition Facility etc.
We may certainly get to a point where some level of mass government infrastructure investment is necessary. (for example) If we have a breakthrough on fusion, suddenly electric cars would be the obvious winner, but we'd need a mass rollout of charging stations. Lots of other possibilities, many unknown now but more likely in reality than that one. This isn't like the oil industry, which grew alongside the transportation network. We're going to need to hugely revamp some things, and that probably requires public money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-boom-in-shale-gas-credit-the-feds/2011/12/07/gIQAecFIzO_story.html
These are all great points. The decision becomes what are the specifications in which a company/ individual/ university granted funds for a project of this undertaking. I love the idea of giving research grants to willing and able thinkers who will provide breakthroughs but how with foresight will we be able to do this better than the private market. I see you list NSF and DoE but what exactly would give them the foresight that they have lacked in years past to accurately procure money to qualifying parties? I say this in a purely theoretical and admittedly ignorant knowledge on the operations of the these two federal bureaucracies.
There no doubt needs to be investment in our infrastructure at a whole but whenever projects at that scale are discussed politics come into play, how do modernize infrastructure without creating more debt and why should we go through that process in a time where our resources are stretched thin?

edit: the first comment in that article has a lot of useful information that contrasts the idea that fracking is largely the result of government help, at least in respect to how i read it while prepping for bed. smile.gif
post #1748 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihambrecht View Post

These are all great points. The decision becomes what are the specifications in which a company/ individual/ university granted funds for a project of this undertaking. I love the idea of giving research grants to willing and able thinkers who will provide breakthroughs but how with foresight will we be able to do this better than the private market.
The issue at this point is that the private market invests very lightly in private research, especially in fundamentals or highly speculative technology. They have essentially offloaded it to academics and government labs, both of which are funded by the government nearly entirely. There's a lot of reasons behind that development which are probably too much to get into for this thread, but it's a more or less functional system.

One of the major reasons that industry has gotten out of the fundamental research game is that the profit potential is incredibly difficult to gauge. Some things pay out orders of magnitude beyond their cost, some pay off to a lesser degree. Many have purely intellectual payouts and may trigger some other innovation down the road. Others fail entirely. It's extraordinarily difficult to predict which is which, and so we have this system where government steps in and funds things with the assumption that producing good science leads to profit. And it has worked out.
Quote:
I see you list NSF and DoE but what exactly would give them the foresight that they have lacked in years past to accurately procure money to qualifying parties? I say this in a purely theoretical and admittedly ignorant knowledge on the operations of the these two federal bureaucracies.
I don't think they have failed. The bureaucracy is generally good at spreading money around to qualified research groups, who still do better research than any other nation in the world. We have some problems, but it's a pretty efficient system overall.

Well, if you keep Congress out of the specifics, anyway.
Quote:
There no doubt needs to be investment in our infrastructure at a whole but whenever projects at that scale are discussed politics come into play, how do modernize infrastructure without creating more debt and why should we go through that process in a time where our resources are stretched thin?
I don't have an answer to that. The hope would be that economic growth would pay off the cost, or (more depressingly) that we simply don't have a choice as the status quo becomes increasingly more expensive.
Quote:
edit: the first comment in that article has a lot of useful information that contrasts the idea that fracking is largely the result of government help, at least in respect to how i read it while prepping for bed. smile.gif

My point was never that fracking was the sole (or even majority) product of government, but that the interplay between government and industry led to this boom. Neither would have likely produced it on their own.
post #1749 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I don't think Solyndra or corn ethanol style mass expenditures are the way to go, but a broad investment in energy-focused research will almost inevitably pay dividends. Keep the politicians out of it, let the career people at NSF and DoE made the bulk of the decisions. Throw big federal money at projects like the National Ignition Facility etc.
We may certainly get to a point where some level of mass government infrastructure investment is necessary. (for example) If we have a breakthrough on fusion, suddenly electric cars would be the obvious winner, but we'd need a mass rollout of charging stations. Lots of other possibilities, many unknown now but more likely in reality than that one. This isn't like the oil industry, which grew alongside the transportation network. We're going to need to hugely revamp some things, and that probably requires public money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-boom-in-shale-gas-credit-the-feds/2011/12/07/gIQAecFIzO_story.html

If we had a more sensible intellectual property law in this country, Gov't investment wouldn't be needed for that either.
post #1750 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

If we had a more sensible intellectual property law in this country, Gov't investment wouldn't be needed for that either.

Yeah, maybe Einstein's estate should be receiving royalties for general relativity.

You say some dumb stuff, but this is tops.

(Yes, I'm aware of the dates of the anachronism but it gets the point across better than other more obscure discoveries).
Edited by why - 10/7/12 at 11:07am
post #1751 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

Yeah, maybe Einstein's estate should be receiving royalties for general relativity.
You say some dumb stuff, but this is tops.
(Yes, I'm aware of the dates of the anachronism but it gets the point across better than other more obscure discoveries).

Not sure you understand the point. Our intellectual property laws are too favorable for inventors.

If we had a major breakthrough that would require a mass conversion of vehicles and rapid build-out of infrastructure, it could easily be accomplished in the private sector if the technology were shared and all parties had an opportunity to enter the market.
post #1752 of 5454
post #1753 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

Not sure you understand the point. Our intellectual property laws are too favorable for inventors.
If we had a major breakthrough that would require a mass conversion of vehicles and rapid build-out of infrastructure, it could easily be accomplished in the private sector if the technology were shared and all parties had an opportunity to enter the market.

IP laws are too protective of intellectual property, therefore the private sector doesn't invest in intellectual property. Solid logic.

The solution to the problem of lack of private investment into research which may never a profitable application is to lower the amount of profit a potential investor might receive if it does in fact yield an application. Again, solid logic.

Also, do you understand the difference between research and industry and the fact that many (likely most) advances precede their applications or even the remotest glimpse of their potential applications? That is, Boole didn't sit down and develop his algebra so that one day we all could be posting nonsense on an Internet forum.
post #1754 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

IP laws are too protective of intellectual property, therefore the private sector doesn't invest in intellectual property. Solid logic.
The solution to the problem of lack of private investment into research which may never a profitable application is to lower the amount of profit a potential investor might receive if it does in fact yield an application. Again, solid logic.
Also, do you understand the difference between research and industry and the fact that many (likely most) advances precede their applications or even the remotest glimpse of their potential applications? That is, Boole didn't sit down and develop his algebra so that one day we all could be posting nonsense on an Internet forum.

Not the logic at all.... if one firm has all the rights to the new energy source for a prolonged period of time, then they will mete out supply to increase profit, rather than flood the market... as demand increases, they will insist they need help from the Government to move more quickly.

If a large number of firms are competing to get to market, you will have a rapid, large-scale build-out with no need for Government intervention.

The argument that progress would halt if creators are not given huge anti-competitive advantages is stale, and unlikely at best. Being the first to market is still a huge advantage.
post #1755 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

Not the logic at all.... if one firm has all the rights to the new energy source for a prolonged period of time, then they will mete out supply to increase profit, rather than flood the market... as demand increases, they will insist they need help from the Government to move more quickly.
If a large number of firms are competing to get to market, you will have a rapid, large-scale build-out with no need for Government intervention.
The argument that progress would halt if creators are not given huge anti-competitive advantages is stale, and unlikely at best. Being the first to market is still a huge advantage.

What does any of this have to do with research funding? Do you understand what research is? Do you understand that there is no such thing as intellectual property for possible ideas? I mean, I think it goes without explaining that a person or company has no rights to ideas they've never had.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.